From the manual, it seems that the only way Soviet corps units can acheive guards status is if two of three units used to form them are guards? Or do I read this correctly? From my in-game observations, this certainly appears to be the case. Look for example at the win rates of the Cavalry corps in the screenshot below; from their win/loss ratios they should have become Guards corps long ago. The screenshot is from turn 47, may 1942.

If my reading of the manual is correct, I would say that this is historically incorrect. Several Soviet Guards corps were created as regular corps and then promoted later after a successful operation. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_corps_(Soviet_Union)

There is a limit on how many guards units are in the game. For the period Jan - June '42 the number of guards units is limited to about 10% for all non-mech forces. See 9.2.2.1 on page 125.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Manual v0.53 May 10, 2012

9.2.2.1. Guards Number Limits While not exact, there are limits to the number of each type of unit (infantry, armour, mountain, artillery, etc.) that may become guards units. The size of the unit may impact the percentages, with larger units having more impact than smaller ones. There is no limit on the number of cavalry or airborne combat units that may become guards units.

It looks like only the top two units qualify based on condition #2. They need a minimum of 8 wins to qualify in '42 (year modifier = 2). The top two units also qualify on condition #3. So they would roll on condition #1. In the worst case they need a roll of equal 16 (8 + random(8)). The 6th Cav Corps beats that automatically due to 16 + 2 and 3rd Cav Corps is likely to beat that in all but the worst case with 13 + 2. So if those units have not converted to Guards after reaching that level of wins it looks like a bug. Did they get any of those wins in the turn shown? If so you might have to wait until next turn to get Guards status.

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

From the manual, it seems that the only way Soviet corps units can acheive guards status is if two of three units used to form them are guards? Or do I read this correctly? From my in-game observations, this certainly appears to be the case. Look for example at the win rates of the Cavalry corps in the screenshot below; from their win/loss ratios they should have become Guards corps long ago. The screenshot is from turn 47, may 1942.

If my reading of the manual is correct, I would say that this is historically incorrect. Several Soviet Guards corps were created as regular corps and then promoted later after a successful operation. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_corps_(Soviet_Union)

Naturally i cant say what is WAD Tarhunnas, but the way u describe it seems to be with those formation that is able to break down into sub "whole" units. So Inf and Cav corps works like that cuz they can break down into divs/rifle bde's unlike mech and tank corps that breaks down into sub part units. The mech/tank corps status except on creation( 2+ guard subparts making guard) is based on their own win//loss table. At leased this is how it works in my experience, not judging its correctness. Seen it plenty a times when a cav div attains guard status then having 2 guard units in the cav corps it gets guard status too. Where as tank corps gets guard status only on the merits of the corps. Note 2+ tank guard bdes will make a guard tank corps at creation, but if u combine 3 non guard bde with lots of wins those are errased on making the corps and it starts back at 0 wins.

It looks like only the top two units qualify based on condition #2. They need a minimum of 8 wins to qualify in '42 (year modifier = 2). The top two units also qualify on condition #3. So they would roll on condition #1. In the worst case they need a roll of equal 16 (8 + random(8)). The 6th Cav Corps beats that automatically due to 16 + 2 and 3rd Cav Corps is likely to beat that in all but the worst case with 13 + 2. So if those units have not converted to Guards after reaching that level of wins it looks like a bug. Did they get any of those wins in the turn shown? If so you might have to wait until next turn to get Guards status.

Yes, I know there is a roll and it can take some time. This win ratio is accumulated over a number of turns, so I cannot say exactly which turn they acheived the wins, but it has been mud for the last 5 turns with very few attacks, so it is very lilkely they have had that win/loss ratio for at least 5 turns. That is why I suspected something might be wrong.

Yes, I know there is a roll and it can take some time. This win ratio is accumulated over a number of turns, so I cannot say exactly which turn they acheived the wins, but it has been mud for the last 5 turns with very few attacks, so it is very lilkely they have had that win/loss ratio for at least 5 turns. That is why I suspected something might be wrong.

Since the guard status of the cav corps is based on the individual divisions, could u save, break down corps, check the win/loss/guard status of the individual divs? In essense the win loss ration of the corps is irrelevant here, as the guard status is based on the divs in the corps. Ofc if u keep the same divs in the corps eventually the divs with that win ratio will indvidually get guard status, but its not always the case that the same divs are kept. Or lets say if the divs pre making the corps have a ratio of 0 wins 14 losses their current win loss ratio would be negative and there for they cant attain guard status yet.

Not that i know if this is why, but there IMO could be some perfectly valid reasons for keeping the win/loss tracker keept at div/bde lvls. Tho i understand Tarhunnas point from a historic POV, im much more evil than him and can see the possibilties for abuse if the win/loss ratio is keept at corps lvls instead instead of div/bde. In the cases they are.

As it is currently there is good point making corps from guard divs and division with a good win/loss record. If a change was made to count corps win/losses there would be a whole new dynamic in place. Instead of making corps of ur best troops, apart from the directly making guard corps it would actually be better to make corps out of ur worst case divs. If all of a sudden a div with a 0 win to 35 loss record which would have no chance of ever becomming guard or a slight one. Could be used in making a new corps and then since its the corps record that is then used. It after 8 9 win could become guard, no matter its bad record as a div. In effect cancelling the bad record from "all " divs.

I dunno if this is the reasoning behind the current system, but in that view how ever "unhistoric" as is, u keep players honest and the possibilty for "abuse/using the system" in the other system is certainly higher.

Not that i know this, but there IMO could be some perfectly valid reasons for keeping the win/loss tracker keept at div/bde lvls.

IIRC, win/loss count is kept track of separately for component Divisions of a Corps, as I've seen component Divisions turn guards before/after the parent Corps turns guards. It will show in the event log as something like: "5th Cavalry Division (1st Cavalry Corps) renamed 7th Guards Cavalry Division". Perhaps the parent Corps will only turn guards when two of the component Divisions turn guards, and not by the overall Corps win/loss record? Otherwise, it would be much easier for the parent Corps to build up wins as it is a larger and stronger unit.

For Brigades of Tank/Mech Corps, it may count wins/losses differently, but I believe that when building up a Tank/Mech Corps, the win/loss record for the component Brigades are averaged to give a record for the Corps. I don't know what happens to the Brigade wins/losses when splitting a Tank/Mech Corps, because I never do that.

IIRC, win/loss count is kept track of separately for component Divisions of a Corps, as I've seen component Divisions turn guards before/after the parent Corps turns guards. It will show in the event log as something like: "5th Cavalry Division (1st Cavalry Corps) renamed 7th Guards Cavalry Division". Perhaps the parent Corps will only turn guards when two of the component Divisions turn guards, and not by the overall Corps win/loss record?

Exactly.

quote:

For Brigades of Tank/Mech Corps, it may count wins/losses differently, but I believe that when building up a Tank/Mech Corps, the win/loss record for the component Brigades are averaged to give a record for the Corps. I don't know what happens to the Brigade wins/losses when splitting a Tank/Mech Corps, because I never do that.

See my post 5. It doesnt quite work like that. Unlike a inf/cav corps, tank/mech cant break down into the old brigades. They break down in sub brigades of the new corps, not the original brigades. Hench there is no where to keep the original bde records, since they dont excists any more. So u hafta use the corps record for guard status.

When u combine Tank/mot/mech brigades into a new corps the new corps starts with 0 wins/loss no matter number of wins for the bde's pre that. At leased it was like that of a few pacthes ago when i tested it. There is no average record for the corps. U start from scratch, periode. Ofc if combined from 2+ guard units it starts with guard status. I never tested what happens to a alrdy formed corps, broken down, with bde's/sub units in different combats aka different win/loss ratio for the different sub units when recombined.

Rasmus is right, one can break them down again into the original divisions, and wins and losses appear to be tracked individually for the divisions. How the individual wins and losses are totalled for the corps appears a mystery however. It appears neither to be the average nor sum of the component divisions wins/losses...

The 2d to 4th divisions in the screenshot below are the component divisions of the 6th Cavalry Corps when broken down.

Below is the 3d Cavalry Corps entire and broken down before a successful attack, and the same after the win. Indeed the divisions do track victories individually, it is the summing up at corps level which appears a little strange. I assume that once two of the divisions acheive guards status, the corps will be promoted to guards too.

Below is the 3d Cavalry Corps entire and broken down before a successful attack, and the same after the win. Indeed the divisions do track victories individually, it is the summing up at corps level which appears a little strange. I assume that once two of the divisions acheive guards status, the corps will be promoted to guards too.

As to the corps victories/losses i think its keept as a seperate record, independantly of the divs. 1 victory will give it 1 in win column and so on. The record is just irrelevant as far as guard status is concerned. As its based on getting 2 of the divs guard status u then do indeed get the corps guard status too.

Since cav corps are fairly cheap to make. One can if one wishes, break up the corps, over time and distribuate it so that u have 2 guard divs +1 regular in the different corps too maximize ur number of guard corps. At leased i know of some that does that.

Below is the 3d Cavalry Corps entire and broken down before a successful attack, and the same after the win. Indeed the divisions do track victories individually, it is the summing up at corps level which appears a little strange. I assume that once two of the divisions acheive guards status, the corps will be promoted to guards too.

As to the corps victories/losses i think its keept as a seperate record, independantly of the divs. 1 victory will give it 1 in win column and so on. The record is just irrelevant as far as guard status is concerned. As its based on getting 2 of the divs guard status u then do indeed get the corps guard status too.

When Cavalry Corps is formed from divisions, then each division converts to guards independently and once two converted the whole Corps should get converted as well. Most of the time when division do not fight independently they have the same stats as parent Corps.